RP Listener Forum

RAFT  »   Climate Change
Post to this Topic
haresfur  (The Golden Triangle)
Jun 29, 2017 - 5:16pm

 kcar wrote:


Ricky Bobby Perry is the definition of "empty suit." I see that he's still trying to raise his IQ with those "I am serious and intelligent" glasses. 

 
If Rick Perry was correct that people are contributing to climate change but only a small part of the contribution, the conclusion is that we have to alter our behavior sooner and more radically. Maybe cutting our emissions in half would be enough if we are the major cause, but if we are only a minor contributor (we are a major contributor, but for the sake of discussion), then we have to make proportionally greater change to have the same effect.

TL;DR: get your thumb out of your butt and cut emissions
 
kcar
Jun 29, 2017 - 2:23pm

 R_P wrote:


 

Ricky Bobby Perry is the definition of "empty suit." I see that he's still trying to raise his IQ with those "I am serious and intelligent" glasses. 
 
R_P
Jun 29, 2017 - 11:06am


 
R_P
Jun 27, 2017 - 2:34pm


 
Antigone  (A house, in a Virginian Valley)
Mar 28, 2017 - 7:16am


 
 
 
 
R_P
Mar 18, 2017 - 7:03pm

Denier-in-Chief
 
R_P
Mar 17, 2017 - 10:59pm


1961
 
Red_Dragon
Mar 15, 2017 - 6:43pm

 haresfur wrote:
The thing that is missing in the response to climate change deniers is asking for their evidence. The science community tends to focus on laying out all our reasons people are changing the climate and respond with more studies and more data when challenged.

But the real response should be, "Ok Scott Exxon, explain the science behind your belief. Do you agree that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? Does that CO2 end up in the atmosphere? Show evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that causes the atmosphere to trap more heat from solar radiation? What other mechanism do you have that explains our climate trends and calculate the magnitude of the effect (be sure to show your work)? How do you propose we can adapt to survive under conditions of periods in the earth history when temperatures were much warmer? If we mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, how much would that help provide additional time to adapt to any changes due to your mystery process?"

Bottom line, The monkey is on your back. If you disagree with climate change science, it is time to buck up and show where you can demonstrate it is wrong. Saying you don't believe it is worth SFA. 

 
The shitgibbon doesn't require evidence to support his outrageous claims; why should climate change deniers?
 
haresfur  (The Golden Triangle)
Mar 15, 2017 - 5:06pm

The thing that is missing in the response to climate change deniers is asking for their evidence. The science community tends to focus on laying out all our reasons people are changing the climate and respond with more studies and more data when challenged.

But the real response should be, "Ok Scott Exxon, explain the science behind your belief. Do you agree that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? Does that CO2 end up in the atmosphere? Show evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that causes the atmosphere to trap more heat from solar radiation? What other mechanism do you have that explains our climate trends and calculate the magnitude of the effect (be sure to show your work)? How do you propose we can adapt to survive under conditions of periods in the earth history when temperatures were much warmer? If we mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, how much would that help provide additional time to adapt to any changes due to your mystery process?"

Bottom line, The monkey is on your back. If you disagree with climate change science, it is time to buck up and show where you can demonstrate it is wrong. Saying you don't believe it is worth SFA. 
 
 
 
rhahl
Jan 9, 2017 - 4:46pm

“Climate change may shut down a current that keeps the North Atlantic warm”

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14193498/atlantic-circulation-current-amoc-collapse-carbon-emissions-global-warming
 
 
Skydog
Dec 6, 2016 - 10:08am

I was listening to Bloomberg Radio this morning and they had Mario Gabelli of Gabelli Funds on, when asked about the recent OPEC agreement to set limits on oil production and what effect it will have on prices he said that it doesn't much matter because of tech of the USA to bring oil up and that members of OPEC will cheat just like they always have done in the past.
Here is the part that caught my attention, he went on to say that in 30 years the price of oil will be $0.00 (yep he said zero) because of demand and they are trying to sell as much as possible now.

That's interesting if true, oil producers see their end is near.
I remember sometime around 2005-2010 predictions were made about 'peak oil' by 2015, high demand taking it up to $200.00 per barrel but we have a glut instead. 
The 52 week high-low is $53.72-$34.55 currently at $50.00

It seems to me that 30 years is a very short time for such a massive change from oil to ??.
I hope I am around to see it,...I think.
 
 
 
rhahl
Sep 21, 2016 - 12:49pm

Methane Hydrates - Extended Interview Extracts With Natalia Shakhova


Seismic activity could release hundreds of gigatonnes of methane from the arctic once the ice is thin enough. "The worst thing could happen." Having foreseen the end of the world she looks depressed. Women are so emotional.


 
 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77  Next